IT should really think about welcoming Older SM's....... Without a new class..

[gpeluso]

I think the writing is on the wall for the older SM cars(1.6) and soon to be na 1.8 cars in SpecMiata. A few of the IT rules make it tough for a SM to transfer.... Depowering racks ( yeah I know they made a manual) and the torsen rear end that most have from a 99. These cars are starting to sit and can be bought cheap... .these great cars need a home and IT needs numbers. IT should take advantage of SM being a National class and taking big dollars to win. I personally built a SM this year to have more people to run against. I currently have an ITR e46 BMW that I have $40k + in that I would sell today for $16.5k to fund another miata for IT or STL.

Looking at the ProIT series is a great example.... It would not exist without inviting current SM's...... Matter of fact..... Almost every racing organization will fail on a weekend with SM's paying for multiple entries. It's time to open up the rule books for simple changes and start having deeper fields.

Waiting for the food throwing at me now.
Greg Peluso

[jwasilko]

Good timing as the specpinata folks are talking about where the NC (MX-5) will fit into SM.

http://mazdaracers.com/topic/4506-is-there-a-long-term-plan-of-integratng-mx-5-into-spec-miata/

[Dano77]

Oh yeah Lets open this pandoras box.

The simple answer is that a Miata with a 1.6 and a Miata with a 1.8 are both legal cars for IT right now. Build it to the rules that currently exist in IT and your done. OR Leave it in SM trim and run in SM.. Dont see any reason to allow Competition Adjustments for this model car only. Quite frankly this conversation has been had many times, and its getting old. Build it to the Rules in PLACE, or dont run IT! Its that F***** simple

[gpeluso]

Dano77
this weekend I am Running SM and parking my IT car..........your right,it is simple. Haha
Just thought timing was good....

Greg

[Greg Amy]

Where are the conflicts in the regs? Where are the cars not compliant to IT regs now? Put together a detailed proposal to submit to the CRB; if you want to hash it out before submission, post it here.

GA

Edit: I have submitted several times a proposal to allow de-powering of the racks. I've been rejected each time. The general concern centers around two points: that's not the way it has always been done and it would upset the "balance of power". I counter that the first point is irrelevant except in the context of stability, and we have "what we know" for the the second point.

As for the Torsen rear ends of the 1.6s, given lack of availability I would not oppose a line-item allowance to change the pumpkins to '99 to allow the Torsen. But it ain't gonna happen on its own; you need to request it and convince the ITAC to support it to the CRB.

[gpeluso]

Dano77
this weekend I am Running SM and parking my IT car..........your right,it is simple. Haha
Just thought timing was good....

Greg

[Dano77]

Look Im not trying to start a fight. I just dont see a need to change a set of rules or even the philosiphy of the rules to suit a certain car that is prepped to a different set of rules. The IT rule set works as designed. Certain cars have warts. The 1.6 Miata is one of them. I get that.

I also get that without the Miata the club would clearly go broke. I am actually surprised that the SCCA made it this far without the Miata from day one in 1948.

The Miata is eligible in SM,SSM,SM2,STU,STL,SMT,ITE,ITEZ all without a conflict of rules. With minor changes its also in SPU. A few more changes and it goes to EP FP GTL, GT3,GT2. Thats almost 50% of the closed wheel classes, Why do we need to Change an entire rule set to allow it to be Compliant in ITA and ITS as well. Run it as it is, take your chances in IT. IF some one does throw paper,and its non-compliant, take the lumps and move on.

And its way more than a PS rack being de-powered, or a rear diff from a different spec line.

Sorry Greg if I seem pissy, just tired of having this conversation every weekend with some one who thinks their car is being unjustly discriminated against is all.

[Greg Amy]

...just tired of having this conversation every weekend with some one who thinks their car is being unjustly discriminated against is all.
LOL! I hear ya, brother. But you just can't keep pressin' down and pressin' down on the back of the oppressed...it's time for JUSTICE!

[Ed Funk]

If the Miata had never been produced, would SCCA have died? Hell no! People that want to race would race something else. The Miata is the easy button, a ton of development has been done on the car by Flatout, Planet Miata, Kessler, et al. Buy a Miata, rent a Miata...easy. But we sure as he'll don't need more classes for them to run in! Or cater to their every whim.

[Wreckerboy]

As the owner of a 1.6 SSM car I think this is not a good idea. I like the IT rule set and core values because it leads to stability. One of those IT tenets is "warts and all." I built my car for a specific class, just as the IT folks built their cars. If I want to run IT I have to accept all of the IT rules, "warts and all". There is no reason to give me any sort of special dispensation or "exemption." Line item exceptions are the road to Prod.

Rob, who built his car for a specific class in a specific region, and recognizes the "warts and all" that approach brings.

[Knestis]

If the Miata had never been produced, would SCCA have died? Hell no! People that want to race would race something else. The Miata is the easy button, a ton of development has been done on the car by Flatout, Planet Miata, Kessler, et al. Buy a Miata, rent a Miata...easy. But we sure as he'll don't need more classes for them to run in! Or cater to their every whim.

This.

SCCA is good at eating its own young, classing-wise. Pretty much all of the current SM stalwarts - those teams that rent fleets of them - left another class smaller when they departed. Based on what I know from three freaking decades of this game, only the tiniest handful of new racers would have opted to, say, buy a bass boat instead of racing something else, absent SM.

K

[Z3_GoCar]

So-Pac Division already allows SM's to race in IT in the divisional races. It's called out in our regional class rules. The sky's not fallen and the really serious SM guys only run SM anyway. It's mostly the mid-pack and back racers who do both or even SM-STL-IT.

[joeg]

Miatas should be eligible for all classes--even open wheel. Just take the front fenders off.

We can then have unlimited double dipping.

[seckerich]

The depowered racks should have been done in IT a long time ago. For the ITAC to even think they consider that in classing is a joke. Nowhere in the process is parasitic drag of accessories considered. And this is from someone with a lifetime stash of non powered racks.

People with this hatred of Miata and the classes they can run need to get a little perspective. As a race chairman the numbers do matter. True what Kirk says, most of these drivers would just be back in the IT car they left if SM never happened. It is also very true that Mazda has pushed many other manufacturers to step up and offer contingency because of their support program. Those double dipping entries you make fun of help keep the numbers up and your entry fee down. I love it when OPM, etc rent the SM to another driver for ITA/ITS, it pays the bills. Now if you really believe that the 1.8 diff beat you you have some soul searching to do.

All past discussion aside, it sets a precedent to allow it and the ITAC has resisted that for good reason. That said never seen a driver protested because of it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

All past discussion aside, it sets a precedent to allow it and the ITAC has resisted that for good reason. That said never seen a driver protested because of it.

Agree. This can be dealt with on a Regional level. Specifically allow them in your regs and it's done. The issue is that there is no guarantee that he SMAC won't continue to tweak the rules to make those cars 'faster' to keep up with the 99's. Basing a rule on a spec level of another class that you can't control is not smart from the 10,000 ft level. Deal with it locally until it doesn't work, then fix.

[Ron Earp]

The cars are competitive in ITA/ITS now. I don't know if these competitive cars have depowered PS racks or not, but I don't think anything is going to give you grief over it. It'd be nice to see the rules changes to allow folks to remove PS though.

However with a bit of work you can de-power the rack: pulley on the PS pump that is an idler around a bearing pressed on the PS shaft, remove the innards of the rack (i.e., my rack is busted), remove the vanes in the PS pump (i.e., my pump is busted). That said, I love the PS on the Mustang and feel it is a contributing factor to it being a very tossable and easy car to drive.

[gran racing]

Many regions now also have SM2 to deal with exactly what you're talking about. It's quite popular in the N.E. The solution is already there.

I actually agree with Dan. Don't change IT rules to accommodate the car. Change the car to be legal with the class YOU CHOOSE to race with. When it becomes time that the car you're running isn't where you'd like to be at, sell it and buy something else. Yes, maybe hard to do emotionally and potentially financially. I just went through that recently after selling my ITB car and bought a guess what... LOL

[Greg Amy]

It'd be nice to see the rules changes to allow folks to remove PS though.
Being able to de-power the rack would make my potential decision to prep the STL Integra to ITR a lot easier. Right now, finding, buying, and re-installing all the PS parts and bits and pieces is the biggest PITA of all the items I have to do to get there...

Regardless, that would address one of the three biggest differences between SM and ITA, the other two being 1.6L final drive swaps (I think that could get line-item'd without much grief) and head prep (unfortunately, already "tech shed legal").

I opposed inclusion of SM-spec cars into ITx a few years ago when it was first proposed. "Because Improved Touring" I'm still leaning that direction. However, if we could address the power steering issue as a category change, and the final drive issue as a line-item change, and simply accept that we cannot enforce the head prep issue, then that would alleviate having to allow the entire category.

GA

[gran racing]

Are there gains to be had by having a de-powered rack vs non-powered?

[Chip42]

what Andy said - the allowances in SM which are beyond IT are offset by the allowances in IT that are not in SM. a fully complaint SM car is not compliant with IT but it's also not better than a fully built IT car, even one without more than slight intorturation of the roffe corollary. to include that in IT certainly wouldn't upset the balance of the class - but you never know what allowances might be made in the future that COULD. so it's a no go. as has been pointed out, there's plenty of other options with and without changes to the cars.

re depowered racks - SAE net HP includes accessories, SAE certified HP does likewise. so everything from the early 70's on that ONLY came with PS, yes, it is included in the process.
does that mean we should or shouldn't allow them? you've all seen the votes out of the committee and CRB in the past. it hasn't been allowed, we dont' see a NEED to allow it, and it COULD have some effect on parity. easy to do, convenient, etc.. are good arguments. they are not the only arguemnts considered. FWIW, I'm in the camp to allow depowering racks on cars whos specline included both PS and manual steering - but it's confusing and I understand why this position was not adopted.

[Ron Earp]

Are there gains to be had by having a de-powered rack vs non-powered?

Most certainly but the absolute value will depend on a variety of factors. I tend to believe it is minimal and won't affect your lap times at all. Some have done some testing and will quote numbers, but when you examine the testing I've found it far from conclusive and decisive.

[gran racing]

a fully complaint SM car is not compliant with IT but it's also not better than a fully built IT car, even one without more than slight intorturation of the roffe corollary. to include that in IT certainly wouldn't upset the balance of the class

I don't even want to begin going down that road. Might as well allow cams in cars to more easily attain HP / Tq numbers that could be achieved through a expensive and time consuming build. Same general concept and not a part of the IT philosophy, at least now.

I liked having power steering in my Honda. Sure is a workout to drive my Miata at times. With an injured shoulder, big bend at LRP is tough on it.

[lawtonglenn]

....

I liked having power steering in my Honda. Sure is a workout to drive my Miata at times. With an injured shoulder, big bend at LRP is tough on it.


Again, I know this is completely irrelevant to the current discussion, but in the ITS RX7, where you
have a choice between a stock manual rack and a stock power steering rack, there is a major difference
in the effort needed because of the difference in ratios:

Steering Specifications (Manual Steering)

Type: rack and pinion
Overall Ratio: 20.3:1
Turns (lock to lock): 3.5
Turning Circle: 32.2 feet

Steering Specifications (Power Steering)

Type: rack and pinion
Overall Ratio: 15.2:1
Turns (lock to lock): 2.7
Turning Circle: 32.2 feet

So, allowing depowered racks would allow a "difference" for the RX7, but it
could be argued whether it is a desirable difference or not... I say not



.

[Flyinglizard]

Deleting the The alt circuit wire adds over 1mph . Ihave no idea how much the PS drive slows the car.
Maybe it is time for common sense to prevail, avoiding the extra loose PS belts etc. loop thos e hoses and be done with it. .

[Chip42]

the allowances in SM which are beyond IT are offset by the allowances in IT that are not in SM. a fully complaint SM car is not compliant with IT but it's also not better than a fully built IT car, even one without more than slight intorturation of the roffe corollary. to include that in IT certainly wouldn't upset the balance of the class - but you never know what allowances might be made in the future that COULD. so it's a no go. as has been pointed out, there's plenty of other options with and without changes to the cars.


I don't even want to begin going down that road.

Neither do I - thus the rest of the quote.

[Dano77]

Regardless, that would address one of the three biggest differences between SM and ITA, the other two being 1.6L final drive swaps (I think that could get line-item'd without much grief) and head prep (unfortunately, already "tech shed legal").


GA

Rear Subframe braces attached to body allowed on early model cars as well. 90-93 may upgrade to 94-97 rear subframe braces. Different spec lines. Drivers floor pan can be modified to accept a seat. Tunnel may be modified to accept a seat.


Yes these are nitpickey items, but they are Non-Compliant to the IT specs and specifically allowed in SM specs.

There are more but I need to repair a rocker panel today and cant look at the list yet.

[seckerich]

re depowered racks - SAE net HP includes accessories, SAE certified HP does likewise. so everything from the early 70's on that ONLY came with PS, yes, it is included in the process.
does that mean we should or shouldn't allow them? you've all seen the votes out of the committee and CRB in the past. it hasn't been allowed, we dont' see a NEED to allow it, and it COULD have some effect on parity. easy to do, convenient, etc.. are good arguments. they are not the only arguemnts considered. FWIW, I'm in the camp to allow depowering racks on cars whos specline included both PS and manual steering - but it's confusing and I understand why this position was not adopted.

If this is true then you have already given the power steering equiped cars an advantage. The tricks that can be used to negate the PS drag free up this lost HP and are not factored in the process. See how this is all just noise in the overall picture. So who do we need to pressure on the CRB to get this done?? :023:

[Chip42]

...and there are cases of cars with and without PSon different speclines due to trim or body type (think civic) with the same publsihed hp ratings, the ability to underdrive a parasitic system that is an effective gain over the cars without it, etc... no argument, and it's not the CRB. 'nuff said. you know where the letter form is.

FWIW NOTHING matches the process anyhow. E.G. all the popular ITS stuff is 5% or more above expected power, big motor cars like Jeff's TR8 and the mustangs are well above process weight and power (by how much I do not know, but they do allow that they are well over both). we're just lucky everythign has found a good relative balance due to all the hard work by the competitors, and a fair bit of luck on the classing of cars that "go well together". it's not because of the process. I like the concept, but in execution it's not getting the job done. in the end, we could have just clumped the cars togetehr, pooma'ed some weights, made a few adjustments in time and arrived at the same place. I'm not advocating change, at least SOEMTHIGN objective and repeatable is at play, but it's not the roseta stone to car classing magic as has been touted in the past. it's just a symple math formula that puts out a number that is just one of many variables at play.

[Ron Earp]

...and there are cases of cars with and without PSon different speclines due to trim or body type (think civic) with the same publsihed hp ratings, the ability to underdrive a parasitic system that is an effective gain over the cars without it, etc... no argument, and it's not the CRB. 'nuff said. you know where the letter form is.


The manufacturers did not publish two different horsepower specs based on the type of steering installed in the car and I’m sure we do not have that level of resolution in IT classing. How many cars came with manual and power steering racks? How many of those cars are racing? Wondering about ITS since I know some of those cars…

240,240,260,280Z – all manual
RX7 – manual and power available
TR8 – power only
Mustang – power only
300ZX – power only
Miata – power only I think for ITS years
240SX – power only?
E36 BMW 325 – power only?



FWIW NOTHING matches the process anyhow. E.G. all the popular ITS stuff is 5% or more above expected power, big motor cars like Jeff's TR8 and the mustangs are well above process weight and power (by how much I do not know, but they do allow that they are well over both). we're just lucky everythign has found a good relative balance due to all the hard work by the competitors

The process greatly underestimates gains for a variety of reasons:

*The level of R&D that would be done on IT cars that encompasses many, many facets of the engine development program.
*No distinction between two valve and four valve motors.
*Ignores what modern EFI can do for engine output compared to carbs, or even compared to early EFI.
*Largely ignores displacement and factors only peak power, although there is a "torque adder" that we know when to use when we see it.

With respect to the last point, earlier this week I got interested in area under the horsepower curve and performed some calculations based on my own dyno data. Back in the day, a version of my 260Z engine and a version of the Mustang engine were making the exact same peak power, 169 rwhp. However, the area under the horsepower curve in the best 2000 RPM wide power band for each motor was considerably different with the Mustang having a 16% advantage. Both of these engines exceed their IT process power. The 260Z was rated at 138hp from the factory and went on to make as much as 176-180hp at the wheel when everything was perfect. Parity with these two cars or engines was, as you say, by blind luck. The Z can make its 2480 lb process weight, the Mustang can't and races at about 13% heavier than the Z which is within spitting distance of the 16% horsepower area under the curve advantage.

As stated, most cars are above their 25% process power, but given how things shake out on track I’m not sure any “IT approved” formula or correction could improve things. I do think a new process using a max cam duration, a max lift, factoring displacement, and valve curtain area could create a very interesting and level class, but that’s another topic.


. It's time to open up the rule books for simple changes and start having deeper fields.


Back to this, so what is needed for SMs to come in droves to IT?

1. PS elimination allowance
2. Ability to run a larger torsen/rear end

[Flyinglizard]

The 1.6 SM has been legislated to the middle of the pack or less. The resulting values are now around$5K . Many are running Chump due to this. keep them from going chump would be a good start. IMHO.

Ask for member input regarding PS depower.

Please ask the people that pay the bills.
I doubt that 1 in 100 want to keep it as it is. The rack is the easy part, the lower column pieces are not and get expensive.

[gran racing]

Again, what's wrong with running them in SM2? Nothing on the cars needs to be changed, IT doesn't need to modify it's ruleset. Everything is already in place and done. Seems simple to me.

[Chip42]

The manufacturers did not publish two different horsepower specs based on the type of steering installed in the car and I’m sure we do not have that level of resolution in IT classing. How many cars came with manual and power steering racks? How many of those cars are racing? Wondering about ITS since I know some of those cars…

exactly my point. cars sold with both will have a single output number. my hunch is that would be the no PS number but we simply don't know. in some cases this is combined on one specline (ITA: NA miatas, from your example) and in others it's on different lines (ITB: civic DX 3dr, no PS. LX 4dr, only PS. same published hp, same engine designation, same weight, different speclines.) theres almost no reasonable or even nearly reaosnable way to "process" this.


...given how things shake out on track I’m not sure any “IT approved” formula or correction could improve things. I do think a new process using a max cam duration, a max lift, factoring displacement, and valve curtain area could create a very interesting and level class, but that’s another topic.

I, and I'm sure most of us, have no interest in making a new process. it's objective for the most part as it is, and an objective imperfect system is better than a completely subjective imperfect system.



Back to this, so what is needed for SMs to come in droves to IT?

1. PS elimination allowance
2. Ability to run a larger torsen/rear end

head prep allowances in SM are HUGE compared to IT (even grey area IT). read the SMCS, you'll love it. there are some other swaps that cross IT speclines the cars that share platforms (NA, NB ) like bracing and brakes aside from the rear center section on the NAs.

[lawtonglenn]

I vote we just change the rule and let people loop the damn PS if they want

[Ron Earp]

Again, what's wrong with running them in SM2? Nothing on the cars needs to be changed, IT doesn't need to modify it's ruleset. Everything is already in place and done. Seems simple to me.

Since when is more classes the answer to a problem? Doh, SCCA. Carry on. Off to find out what SM2 is.....



Ask for member input regarding PS depower.
Please ask the people that pay the bills.

Yes, more of this please.


I vote we just change the rule and let people loop the damn PS if they want

Probably the best course of action is to create an initiative proposed by drivers that everyone in the region agrees to. I haven't spoken to a driver who doesn't want to see this change, but Chip indicates the ITAC and CRB won't be on board with it. For such a proposal the simplest form would be requiring that the PS pump remain and not be removed.

[gran racing]

Since when is more classes the answer to a problem?

Normally I'd totally agree and thought the idea was silly. Then I saw more of it and thus far like it. Thought it was more used in other areas too; guess not.

[Terry Hanushek]

Ron


Off to find out what SM2 is.....

These are NA Miatas (1990-1997) prepared to the current SM specifications. SM2 is a Northeast Division class and part of the NEDiv Road Racing Championship (division series).

Terry

[JLawton]

Realistically, at our level, the gains from power to non power steering isnt going to make a shit bit of difference........

[Andy Bettencourt]

But that is not really the point. 3 whp is a 50lb addition to an ITA front driver. And add into it the now-available 'better' ratio steering boxes. Winning is about adding up the little things.

Not sure anything is broken right now.

[gran racing]

25 cars registered in SM2 for Lime Rock. Just sayin'.

[Ron Earp]

Or they could be running in IT.

[Chip42]

but SM2 can still be illegal for IT even if the PS rules were changed. allowing comparable speed classes into IT? the line for the slippery slope starts over there...

[Dano77]

Or they could be running in IT.

Thats the point, They are running IT and they are noncompliant. In NER you can run an SM in 4 race groups. We made it that way so there was a NON SMish group in between every one. So in NER you can run Group 1,3,5,7 or SM, SM2, STL, ITA.

The issue at hand is not JUST Power Steering. But unfortunatly thats what the world is hung up on today, for this discussion. It was a rear diff the last time this came up. Non-Compliant is NON COMPLIANT..... we dont need to change the rules to fit ONE make of car. Slippery slope and all.

[Flyinglizard]

1) Can anyone here give a valid reason not to allow depowering the racks? other than " we cant do that? "
2) Does the updated SM diff go faster or just go more often?? More often is the answer. I think that the entire class/group should allow bigger more modern diffs. They wil go slower but race more often. We had the same discussion with a Datsun a little while ago.

It is true that the Miata has plenty of places to play already. The IT ranks could pick up the 1.6 cars with a little thought before they all go to prod/Chump/NASA.
See a market- make a product.

[Chip42]

mike - I know I'm feeding bears here but:

1) depowering rack has the knock-on request to remove the PS pump. I know, crazy talk! anyhow, with that little power sapper removed, the output of the engines is thuss made different from the number we are starting with in the calculations that are generally referred to as "the process". WHAT WE KNOW (tm) is an often used mechanism to adjust the weight of car where the HP output is documented well enough for us to adjust to that number rather than a theoretical gain percentage over stock advertised hp. we do this on a handful of cars but theres a lot of cars we know diddly about in the ITCS so this isn't a practical way to overcome the issue. As stated above, the process is imperfect, but allowances that change that initial hp number and aren't 100% to all cars (some don't have power steering to start with, everything has an exhaust and all of them are restrictive to some degree) "unblance" the output. yes, I know the "noise" of the system is enough to hide this influence.

2) upDated diffs are currently not part of the class philosophy of improving what was found in showrooms of the USA. we allow alternates or modifications to stock units to keep the one wheel peel to a minimum but do nto allow replacments of the pumkins, transaxles, etc... which is what is needed in the case of the 1.6 - 1.8L NA miata diff swap. you are correct, it doesn't make the car go faster, only more often. but it is a significant change from current philosophy and THATS where the line is being drawn. it's a classic case of be careful what you wish for, and all you have to do is look at the current "max build" in IT vs. the letter of the rules and it' seasy to see that "these cast manifolds are cracking, let the guys run headers" turns into "lets send the car to a specialist fabricator to mock up a set of stainless steel 1-off headers based loosely on calculations from one of two software models or straight mathematics then tune the lengths to suit the motor on a dyno. when we're done we'll go back and try a bunch more configurations with different length between stepped primary pipes, relocating collectors, tr-Y and 4-1, mergine both sides of the V, ...." as the popular adage goes, you get the IT you want.

[gran racing]

Or they could be running in IT.

Is this the direction or where IT has reached? They have a place that makes perfect sense for them to run, has been proven at least in some regions to be a success WITHOUT changing multiple rules to IT just to accommodate them... SRF cars are going to be required several updates and eventually will be phased out of that category. Are we desperate enough to go after them too?

[Ron Earp]

I'm not overly concerned one way or the other. I do feel like more classes in the SCCA is not an improvement, but you guys see it differently and that's fine by me.

[gran racing]

Ron, I truly do agree with you that just creating new classes is typically not the answer. I mocked SM2 here a while back when I first heard about it and how of course we needed yet another Miata class. Yet at the same time seeing it's popularity, how people in that group approach it, and then racing in the class a couple of times changed my mind. Keep in mind that many of these drivers gravitate towards the "Spec" nature of racing. Don't think we can ignore that as spec classes are the most popular within SCCA (believe outside of SCCA too).

In the end it's really a balance. More classes isn't always the answer but neither is opening the rules up within an existing category.

Even though I now race a Miata in IT, I'd love to see ways to encourage other makes within the category. I know, nothing can beat a Miata. :rolleyes: (One of the biggest reasons for my move is a shop owned by a friend was tired of one-off cars and is arguably one of the several top Miata shops in the country.)

[JeffYoung]

Just me speaking, not the entire ITAC obviously:

1. I would be fine with allowing depowered racks. It always seemed to me to be more of a driver comfort issue, the existing ways to depower a rack (other than a loop) are not illegal but hard if not impossible to detect, and the power gain/loss just isn't that much in my view. Yeah, it may be 2-3 or even 7-8 hp, which matters, but it's not going to create a class killer.

2. I would not be fine allowing the 99 Torsen rear end in any SM.

3. Most of the other allowed stuff (floor modifications to allow seat installation) are either allowed, arguably allowed, or aren't really performance mods.

So, to me, if we allowed the racks, all we are really looking at is the rear end stuff right?

[Greg Amy]

So, to me, if we allowed the racks, all we are really looking at is the rear end stuff right?
...which could be done via a line-item allowance.

But...allow me Devil's Advocate.

The reason SM allows it is because the OE rear end is fragile, not as competitive, and because they're hard to get. In other words, it's a wart that the 1.6L Miata must bear. If we allow it for the gander, then we must consider warts allowances for the goose.

I support it (and other reasonable warts allowances). But, to mix metaphors, just pointing out that potential Pandora's Box.

GA

[JeffYoung]

...which could be done via a line-item allowance.

But...allow me Devil's Advocate.

The reason SM allows it is because the OE rear end is fragile, not as competitive, and because they're hard to get. In other words, it's a wart that the 1.6L Miata must bear. If we allow it for the gander, then we must consider warts allowances for the goose.

I support it (and other reasonable warts allowances). But, to mix metaphors, just pointing out that potential Pandora's Box.

GA

Sorry if I wasn't clear but I would not support the rear end allowance for the 1.6. Plenty of competitive 1.6 ITA Miatas out there that aren't burning up diffs every weekend and more importantly, as you suggest, any line item allowance is problematic from a class philosophy standpoint.

I'd be in favor of allowing depowered racks and taking a look at some of the other SM rules on seat mounts, etc. for incorporation into IT, but not the rear end allowance. That goes too far in my personal opinion.

[Ed Funk]

Pandora's Box has warts?!!:o

[Chip42]

no, but I think wart remedies come in pandoras boxes.

or is this a case where "there can be only one?"

[Ed Funk]

On a more serious note (from me?), 2-3 HP can be very expensive to acquire. Should it be a gift to those with power steering?

[Greg Amy]

On a more serious note (from me?), 2-3 HP can be very expensive to acquire. Should it be a gift to those with power steering?
Depends on your perspective. Isn't it already a gift to those without? AFAIK, for example, are the power and non-power Miatas on separate spec lines...? What about other cars that came with P/S as an option?

And, does SAE ratings measured with or without power steering if it's standard in all cars? What about if it's optional?

GA

[Ed Funk]

If it's optional, you can convert to the manual rack.

[jumbojimbo]

So there are 3 options:

1. No change, they are "screwed" in SM, slowly die out. You'd like to think those drivers would build new SM cars, but they won't, the net result will be lost drivers.
2. Make a new class SM2. They get to run for their own trophy, they feel empowered, they are in a smaller class, but one they like. Potential downside: either they have to run with SM in which case they will always be dealing with slow SM cars (welcome to my world) or they run in another group, doubling my changes of being stuck racing with slow miatas.
3. Roll them into IT. They have a place to run where they are competitive (hmm, is this assured? there is no assurance for any other car it will be competitive). Potential downsides: Slippery slope on rules changes. What if they upset the balance in IT (real or imagined) and scare off existing drivers? Just by the nature of their numbers will they force additional rules changes and 'adjustments'?

Another change if you stick them in IT is that currently they run in a spec class. That's a real change in both philosophy and in race strategy/experience. They like spec, that's why they are there or they'd have built an ITA car. Would they be happy in a multi-car class?

I'm having trouble seeing how SM2 isn't the easy button here and it should always run with SM.

Edit: no kidding, 2-3 HP is a 5% gain. :)

Double edit: please for the love of god can we change the class names to SM1 for G1 Miatas, SM2 for G2 so that we can more easily add SM3 for later cars? Why can't the faster cars be HIGHER numbers to make adding new classes to the top easier?

[seckerich]

Or you do as all the other IT blood sucking classes have done and allow them to run ITA if they run full SM rules, no pick and choose. They should be a little slower than a full tilt ITA Miata. Production, ST, etc all poach our entries so why not go the other way??

[gpeluso]

Steve,
I hope you are not being sarcastic.... If not, this is what I think. It just seems to me that participation is not great... And if I am wrong then the attitude should be, How do we create more interest? This past weekend at Pittrace I choose to run my SM because there was only 1 ITR car and 2-3 ITS cars. SM numbers were not great either, 12-13 SM's.... However I had a busy race instead of just riding around by myself ..... I understand this is not true for all regions but do you really think many IT cars are being built this year? I think the key is to make it easy and friendly.

Greg

[jumbojimbo]

Heck, we don't think any IT cars are being built. So you are saying that way to build interest in IT is to allow cars already built to a different ruleset to run in our category? I'm not sure I'm seeing that. If we have a decent turnout of ITA cars, then yeah, maybe SM2 cars are interested because they have something to race against. But if there aren't any ITA cars, then why not just create SM2 and be done with it? And if there aren't any SM2 cars, then why are we even talking about this?

Perception is going to be one big issue allowing SM2 cars into ITA. the SM2 cars are going to think they are slow and being screwed and/or the existing ITA cars are going to think the SM2 cars are fast and they are getting screwed. Best case, one group is going to be unhappy and unmotivated to show up and get smoked (in their mind), worst cast BOTH groups think this.

[gpeluso]

Jim,
I guess I'm lost if no IT cars are being built but the attitude is .." We don't need change bcause it could upset the concept that used to bring drivers"... Remember this thread I created was an idea to help.. I think time maybe passing the rule book by.. And that is sad to me. I recently sold my ITS rx7 due to the issue of parts availability... Tranny parts are becoming impossible to get... Many guys are putting miata guts in and no one is saying a thing...this is real. I was buying used tranny parts... That's crazy! I am not talking about crazy aftermarket stuff,but allowances that promote IT.
One weird thing I noticed this weekend was the lack of full built cars. Maybe this is a trend ? Please...... Let the creative people come forward..... Consider ideas..... And for god sakes quit this write a letter stuff.... No need for the SCCA to keep the post office in business .... These forums should be used .... Changes do not need to be on request only.

Greg

[seckerich]

100 percent serious Greg. All these other classes let IT cars run "as is" to let them experience a National class. Why not go the other way? Usually have plenty of rental shops with cars there and many SM drivers sick of not owning a 99 Miata. No changes from SM, just come run ITA in the early cars. In that form it is not a class winner except in a soft field.

[dickita15]

Jim,. No need for the SCCA to keep the post office in business .... These forums should be used .... Changes do not need to be on request only.

Greg

you do know that "write a letter" means submit an request on line at SCCA.com?

[JeffYoung]

Heck, we don't think any IT cars are being built. So you are saying that way to build interest in IT is to allow cars already built to a different ruleset to run in our category? I'm not sure I'm seeing that. If we have a decent turnout of ITA cars, then yeah, maybe SM2 cars are interested because they have something to race against. But if there aren't any ITA cars, then why not just create SM2 and be done with it? And if there aren't any SM2 cars, then why are we even talking about this?

Perception is going to be one big issue allowing SM2 cars into ITA. the SM2 cars are going to think they are slow and being screwed and/or the existing ITA cars are going to think the SM2 cars are fast and they are getting screwed. Best case, one group is going to be unhappy and unmotivated to show up and get smoked (in their mind), worst cast BOTH groups think this.

Sure they are. I'm aware of at least 5 ITS cars being built/under construction in the SEDiv.

All depends on competition.

[Greg Amy]

Should it be a gift to those with power steering?

If it's optional, you can convert to the manual rack.

You missed my point.

SAE net horsepower -- upon which we base our Improved Touring weights -- is measured with all auxiliary devices installed, including water pump, alternator, power steering pump, etc (old pre-'72 SAE gross was with everything removed, including restrictive exhausts). The question is, for those cars with power steering as an option, how is that number determined? If it's measured with all accessories, then allowing these cars to remove the power steering is a "gift" that cannot be equitably applied, and breaks The Process.

As a direct example, is the Mazda Miata SAE net measured on the base model car, the one without power steering, or the "worst case" scenario, the one with all the auxiliary devices installed? If the latter, then the true "gift" goes to the car that can remove items that were there when the measurement was done.

The vast majority of cars sold within the last two decades have power steering installed as standard. I think we'd be hard-pressed to find too many specific examples where allowing removal across-the-board would place cars in inequitable positions.

GA

[Ron Earp]

The vast majority of cars sold within the last two decades have power steering installed as standard. I think we'd be hard-pressed to find too many specific examples where allowing removal across-the-board would place cars in inequitable positions.

GA

Point I was trying to make five days ago using ITS as an example. Few cars are affected by the rule change. How many of the cars affected are actively racing and racing in active classes?

Beyond that, the process has such low resolution that the 1,2,3,4 hp the PS consumes is lost in the noise. Hell, if we're going to worry about that then we should start second guessing manufacturers' horsepower numbers as well.

Disabling/looping the PS is a very minor change that isn't going to make one iota of difference in competitiveness between cars in IT.

[JeffYoung]

On a more serious note (from me?), 2-3 HP can be very expensive to acquire. Should it be a gift to those with power steering?
It can also be expensive and impossible to prove you've acquired it.

I've got probably 40-50 dyno runs over the last 3 years. 2-3 hp is dyno noise. You get that much variation in results back to back same conditions just minutes apart.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The Miata example isn't a good one as that car just got a weight adjustment using the 'what we know' theory. The most fair way to do it would be to determine a % gain factor...say 1 or 2% (based on actual research, could be more, could be non-existent based on results) and simply add it to all cars with power steering, and then allow them to remove it.

There is a faction that thinks that average gains in IT are greater than 25%, so maybe allowing this and moving the number to 30% could work.

OR, we could leave it alone because nothing is broken...my vote.

As to SM's...it's not just the pumpkin. It's chassis bracing from 1.8's allowed on 1.6's. It's other stuff too, no GCR in my hand. Again, my issue is that RIGHT NOW, a full prep 1.6 or 1.8 SM does not have the performance envelope of the ITA Miata...so there is no issue allowing them to compete while prepped to the SM rules...but the rub is simple:

What if the SMAC/CRB decides to allow the MX5 in...and tries to balance them all in one class? 1.6's get spec cams and 2 points of compressions, 1.8's get spec cams, 99's lose their restriction....you can't have your class dependent on another classes rules that doesn't care about your class. Work it regionally.

[Ron Earp]

It can also be expensive and impossible to prove you've acquired it.

I've got probably 40-50 dyno runs over the last 3 years. 2-3 hp is dyno noise. You get that much variation in results back to back same conditions just minutes apart.

Truth. Checking my hard drive team stang has 67 dyno pulls between the two cars since May 2012. We do statistically analyze our pulls, as well as curve fit them and integrate for area under the curve. We calculate that a couple of percent seems to fall into the noise of the measurement with the noise being comprised of a variety of components.

[Ron Earp]

The Miata example isn't a good one as that car just got a weight adjustment using the 'what we know' theory. The most fair way to do it would be to determine a % gain factor...say 1 or 2% (based on actual research, could be more, could be non-existent based on results) and simply add it to all cars with power steering, and then allow them to remove it.

The problem is that PS loss research is very hard to do. Some of it is methodology, but it's also that the loss is probably about the same absolute value as the noise of the measurement. First we'd need to establish a Limit of Detection for the dyno, LOD, which is the lowest value that can be distinguished from noise. But statistically we can't quantitate values at the LOD, we'd need to work at the Limit of Quantitation, the LOQ, which is about three times higher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detection_limit

Where I'm going with this is if we have two measurements, A and B, and we determine that the LOD of our measurement is 2hp, then we can't statistically say with greater than 95% confidence that A is different from B unless the difference is around 6hp (I'm estimating based on LOD = 3*stdev blank / m, compared to LOQ = 10*Stdev blank / m).

This PS stuff is going to be lost in the noise, and probably the reason why manufacturers do not consider it when stating hp numbers.

Still, I'd be happy to try and measure it and I have the skills to get it done.

[Chip42]

2-3hp is 5% change in ITB. that's debated HEAVILY and can be 50#. how much of our lives here and on committee of various incarnations has been spent debating 5% gain or 50# on ITB cars? how much hoopl was raised by 50# on a miata? it might be in the noise of the dyno, and that's part of OUR problem, but it's not noise in the process, it's a major modification to the lower classes and one of the places where the process and its inputs fail the lower hp / wider mixed technology age classes.

re: power steering. I also suppor the change as I feel i screws SOME cars and helps many. but it's not outside fo the philosophy in my oppinion, certainly adds ease of service and keeps people happy because racecar. the problem just becomes a sudden increase, albeit small at the higher ends of development, in all cars now allowed to run depowered. that just moves the curve a bit. I believe ron is correct that you wouldn't notice it at all in ITS+ but I think as you dig into A and easily in B the effects will be more pronounced, though there's also the truth that many cars down at thos elevels never had the PS option anyhow. the part that worries me is when removal of power steering becomes a defacto requirement as opposed to a nicety - like 0.040 over motors are now - there are cars and drivers who benefit from PS and I woudln't want to HURT them in this way. Id vote for allowing depowering though.

I could be convinced that allowing unmodified SM cars into IT a'la SM in ST is OK so long as NA goes to A and NB to S, and that we have some assurances or veto authority over decisions of the SMAC so that they do not change their performance envelope above where it is now and unbalance the allowance in IT. either way, the feeling of getting screwed that jimbo noted is a very likely outcome and I go back to that and a lack of real need to make this allowance when I say I do NOT want it.


keeping the customers happy is a double edged sword. getting car counts up through artificial means and allowing mods, swaps, changes, or updates to keep cars on track (trans gears, rear end housings, power steering, ecus, whatever) has the effect of moving the class further away from the entry level "bolt on and go" origins to something altogether new and more "prod like". I'm all for making it easier and for finding ways to help keep the old cars on track but not when it caries potentially large shifts in the performance envelope. this is why I support many rules in IT that exist to limit the platform, such that a number of other modifications have a reduced effect (cage boundaries is the common example, reducing effectiveness of many suspension parts to small gains over less "pimpy" upgrades).

[gran racing]

I do wonder how those currently racing in ITA would feel about this as well. Many are not so happy about there being so many Miatas already. Add even more... After numbers in IT? Overall goal of IT and how this fits?

From an overall SCCA viewpoint, I still think it's just a matter of where these cars end up and not concern of losing them. We already have the tools built.

[Ron Earp]

I do wonder how those currently racing in ITA would feel about this as well. Many are not so happy about there being so many Miatas already.

Heck, the SCCA is a Miata club already. Take a gander around the regional paddock and compare Miatas vs. other cars, excluding Spec Racer Fords, and it's pretty clear in the production based categories Mazda/Miata is the most populous car. Accommodating them into the framework of existing classes makes the most sense to me instead of creating yet another SCCA class in a club with too many classes.

[mossaidis]

Bring it.

[Chip42]

what's wrong with just dumping the B6 and installing a BP of the correct vintage into an SM NA and calling it an ITA car? so long as head prep and other things are kept within IT specs, a 1.6L NA chassis built for SM is for all intents and purposes a 1.8L NA chassis (mirrors are open in IT, VIN rule is gone, etc...) and legal to IT specs as such (chassis - motor still has that head work allowance). someone please correct me if I am wrong.

there's enough people still in SM willing to buy pulled SM prep engines that eventually the supply of them will be used up while nice IT compliant engines are installe din their place should the owner wish to come play in our sandbox. there's plenty of places to run the cars as configured to SM, I really don't think we need to add IT. despite that, most regions seem to have no problem letting the SM cars run in the IT group so the change doesn't really seem needed as it's not keeping "customers" away.

[Matt Rowe]

Not to be picky but looking at engine pulls to extrapolate power steering pump loss numbers appears to be the wrong approach. You would be better off trying to get drag loss numbers on the pumps themselves. Data from way back in the day is probably limited but I would be shocked if engine manufacturers today don't carefully spec that requirement and require the suppliers to provide it. I suspect someone either on this forum or from the CRB has connections in the auto industry.

[Knestis]

Since I'm a splitter, so apparently no longer allowed to have opinions about IT rules in particular, I'll speak in the abstract...

If the point were "participation" or "just getting out there," the solution is in the catch-all kinds of classes that already exist, for which an SM - or any number of other cars - are already eligible, but will potentially be woefully off the pace of a really fast example of the class. Or we could have an entire group and call it "open passing HPDE 4" or some such.

Point being, that's NOT the point.

The underlying desire is to be able to RACE, to compete, but to do so conveniently with the same car already run in another class, without spending any additional money to make it fit the existing rules. It's very dangerous to let folks who are looking to compete but are playing the secret-really-wanna-race game into a category by falling for that charade. That camel will get its nose under the tent and start asking for more allowances in no time flat. Or, if the people who are currently lobbying for that option really DO just want to be there, there is nothing to keep the guy who shows up in a couple of years from pushing it.

And conflating conversation about whether a particular new allowance is a good idea for a RACING category with discussion of including cars built to a different ruleset on some basis of PARTICIPAING...? A terrible idea. If New Rule X might a good idea, it should be considered all on its own. If the crossover allowance might be useful, it should be considered separately. I tend to think the latter is never a good idea but at least untangle them so you don't potentially have policy aims at cross purposes.

K

EDIT - OR maybe STL cars should be allowed to run in ITS. It would increase participation. :023:

[JeffYoung]

Or maybe let existing ITS cars (ALL of them) run in STL....lol.

[Wreckerboy]

... or all of those "ancient" 1.6 SM cars could come and run SSM with WDCR. We "only" had 30+ cars last weekend and 43 at MARRS 1 earlier this year. Jus' sayin'...